Applying Minnesota law, a federal district court has held that, where an entity’s principal shareholder was insolvent, but the entity was not, the individual’s insolvency could not be attributed to the entity for purposes of establishing Side A coverage for “Non-Indemnifiable Loss.” Zayed v. Arch Ins. Co., 2013 WL 1183952 (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2013). The court further held that allegations of fraudulent inducement did not trigger an exclusion for claims “arising from” contractual liability, but that the claim was uninsurable as matter of law.

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has held that a settlement agreement between the claimant and policyholder satisfies Connecticut’s direct action statute’s requirement regarding the need for an unsatisfied judgment. Tucker v. American International Group, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-1499, 2013 WL 1294476 (D. Conn. Mar. 28, 2013). Accordingly, the court permitted the claimant’s suit against the carrier to proceed.

The long ELNY saga continues, at least for the time being, with two recent developments.

A Massachusetts bankruptcy court denied the motion for summary judgment of reinsurers Trenwick America Reinsurance Corporation and Unum Life Insurance Company, which sought to determine that debtor Malcom C. Swasey’s debt owed them was nondischargeable in bankruptcy. The underlying dispute centered on the reinsurers’ claim that Swasey and companies he controlled, IRC, Inc. and IRC Re, engaged in fraud and breached a contract under which IRC Re was to provide retrocessional coverage in connection with a workers’ compensation program.

The recent case ofGreb v. Diamond International Corp. highlights the need for dissolved corporations and their insurers to consider the survival statute of their state of incorporation when defending against actions brought in California.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, applying California law, has concluded that it should exercise jurisdiction under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act to determine the availability of coverage for a written demand and has held that the related coverage action should not be stayed in favor of potential future underlying litigation between the Federal Deposition Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the insureds because the outcome of the coverage litigation would not be dependent on resolution of disputed facts in such a future action.  Progressiv

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, applying Texas law, has held that a settlement agreement resolving coverage litigation released the insurer’s obligation for defense costs for certain claims tendered for coverage under a subsequent policy.  Nat’l Heritage Found., Inc. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 5331570 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2012).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska has held that an insurer may make settlement payments for claims against a debtor’s directors and officers where any claims of the debtor are subordinate to those of the directors and officers under the terms of the policy.  The court stated that under these circumstances “the issue of whether the policies are property of the bankruptcy estate is irrelevant.”  In re TierOne Corp., 2012 WL 4513554 (Bankr. D. Neb. Oct. 2, 2012).

In re WL Homes LLC, Case No. 09-10571 (Bankr. D. Del. May 16, 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The debtor’s insurer sought to lift the automatic stay in order to setoff $2.2 million in return premiums against potential defense costs that the insurer expected to incur related to certain insurance claims made against the debtor. The court denied the motion, finding that the insurer had not established a right to setoff under either state law or the Bankruptcy Code.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The administrator for the longstanding schemes of arrangement for the insolvent London Market "KWELM companies" (Kingscroft Insurance Company Limited, Walbrook Insurance Company Limited, El Paso Insurance Company Limited, Lime Street Insurance Company Limited, and Mutual Reinsurance Company Limited), is finally preparing to wrap up. Walbrook and El Paso previously paid all outstanding claims. On September 30, 2012, the remaining three KWELM companies declared their ultimate dividend percentages and sent final "top-up" payments for agreed claims to scheme creditors.